This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-02-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's vain attempt at exculpating himself by pinpointing Hapones as the culprit cannot mislead this Court from his transparent and obvious machinations. His self-serving statement that he himself was a victim of Hapones wilts in the face of the complaining-witnesses' testimonies that he made promises of employment, solicited money from them and even signed receipts as proof of payment. His protestations notwithstanding, he failed to prove that the complaining witnesses were incited by any motive to testify falsely against him. It is contrary to human nature and experience for persons to conspire and accuse a stranger of a crime, or even a casual acquaintance for that matter, that would take the latter's liberty and send him to prison just to appease their feeling of rejection and assuage the frustration of their dreams to go abroad.[6] His denials cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses. Accused-appellant's unsubstantiated denials cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[7] | |||||
|
2002-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| An accused may be convicted based on circumstantial evidence only where factual circumstances which are duly proven by the prosecution constitute an unbroken chain which lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty. To support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the concurrence of the following requisites is essential: (a) there must be more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inference of guilt is based must be proved; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[5] In the case at bar, we find the required link among the circumstances wanting. To be sure, the isolated transactions cited by the trial court and the Court of Appeals do not form an unbroken chain that point to petitioner as the author of the crime. The connection perceived by the lower court was merely conjectural. | |||||